Detect AdonisJS version

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states that the tool reads the project's package.json, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It also describes the kind of information it reports. It doesn't detail error handling or missing-package.json scenarios, but the key behavioral trait is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the outputs. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains the expected input and the high-level output: major version, related packages, and matching docs source. It could be more specific about the structure of the output or edge cases, but for a simple detection tool it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the parameter description in the schema already explains what projectPath means. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Reads ... and reports') and clearly identifies the resource (project's package.json) and the outputs (AdonisJS major version, related packages, matching docs source). It is easily distinguished from the sibling tools search_docs and get_doc, which focus on documentation lookup rather than project inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a usage context: determining the AdonisJS version and correct docs source before using docs tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.